A contrarian blog, because the majority is wrong about a lot of stuff.

December 23, 2012

Another post about the Second Amendment

The people who wrote the Constitution thought that Americans should have the right to bear arms. They successfully used arms to revolt against the king of England, and they wanted to preserve the right of the people to defend themselves not only against Indians and other dangers of the frontier, but also against their own government.

Modern liberal interpretation that the Second Amendment is only about militias is, to put it bluntly, a lot of bullshit. Justice Scalia spent a lot of effort explaining why it’s bullshit in District of Columbia v. Heller.

There’s also a creative liberal argument that the Second Amendment should only apply to the types of guns available in 1791 (the year of the ratification of the Bill of Rights), which were muzzle-loaded single-shot flintlock guns. But I don’t think so. If the purpose of the Second Amendment was, in part, to allow revolution against oppressive government, then the people should have the same kind of weapons as the government troops.

The problem with the Second Amendment is that the founders had little foresight with respect to what the future would hold for weaponry. They certainly didn’t imagine nuclear bombs, nor did they imagine military aircraft and tanks, and in fact it’s doubtful they even imagined that handheld weapons would be able to shoot dozens of bullets before needing to being reloaded.

And as this is an HBD blog, I also need to point out that they also didn’t imagine that the right to bear arms would be applied to negros.

And I also need to point out that the Bill of Rights was only intended to apply to the federal government. The “incorporation” concept wasn’t invented by the Supreme Court until more than a hundred years later. I’m sure they figured that the states would pass laws to prevent negros and other undesirables from owning guns.

Thus we need to think about whether the Second Amendment makes any sense in the 21st Century. Once again, because this is an HBD blog,I know that most of the arguments of the pro-gun nuts are just as much bullshit as the liberal arguments about the meaninglessness of the Second Amendment. Gun nuts say stuff like “if someone really wants to buy a gun they will be able to, so therefore gun control doesn’t work.” But in fact, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people with low IQ and low future-time orientation. They would NOT be able to muster the planning needed to acquire guns in a milieu of tight gun control. Killers with high IQ and who are methodical like James Holmes are a very rare exception. Even Adam Lanza was no James Holmes. Lanza was socially dysfunctional and would not have been capable of obtaining a gun from a hypothetical post-gun-control black market.

And no, guns are not like drugs (for which there does exist a thriving black market). Guns are much harder to smuggle, and people are not addicted to them the way they are addicted to drugs. Guns don’t make you feel high. When guns are illegal, then you can’t do anything with them besides shoot someone, and unless done with a high degree of planning to avoid getting caught (which is beyond the ability of most criminals who have low IQ and low future-time orientation), you will most likely end up in jail. So in all likelihood, there will not be a black market for guns the way there is for drugs.

Now let’s talk about the argument that we need guns to have a revolution against the government. The problem with this is that the government has tanks and attack helicopters, and against that firepower your guns are useless. The Palestinian terrorists living in the West Bank and Gaza have guns, and little good it does them against the IDF when they decide to sweep in and neutralize them. Palestinians are only able to kill Israelis by smuggling bombs into the country and blowing themselves up along with the bomb.

Furthermore, the Second Amendment has been a victim of the success of the United States. Since the end of the Civil War 147 years ago (which was a losing fight, by the way), our government has been so stable that today no one can even imagine taking up arms against it. The tiny minority who think about it are dumb proles who bitterly cling to their guns and religion because they aren’t smart enough to succeed in the 21st century economy.

"Now let’s talk about the argument that we need guns to have a revolution against the government. The problem with this is that the government has tanks and attack helicopters, and against that firepower your guns are useless."

That didn't seem to be the case when the Vietcong, the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan or the various rebel factions in Syria and Libya prevailed against overwhelming firepower.

"And as this is an HBD blog, I also need to point out that they also didn’t imagine that the right to bear arms would be applied to negros."

The negros were supposed to be deported back to Africa. President Abraham Lincoln was directing the Treasury Department to divert funds to the American Colonial Society (which supported deporting the freed slaves to Africa) even as Lincoln was writing the Gettysburg address.

"Once again, because this is an HBD blog,I know that most of the arguments of the pro-gun nuts are just as much bullshit as the liberal arguments about the meaninglessness of the Second Amendment. Gun nuts say stuff like “if someone really wants to buy a gun they will be able to, so therefore gun control doesn’t work.” "

Gun control doesn't work.

The low IQ can still get guns. Smuggling them into countries with tight gun control laws isn't much harder than smuggling drugs. In Europe, low IQ immigrants manage to get their hands on firearms to commit crimes. The effect of restricting guns just leaves law abiding Europeans helpless in the face of criminal immigrants.

And if the low-IQ are the ones using guns for violence then there's no reason to prevent the law abiding from owning guns since the law abiding citizens are much less likely to commit crime.

"But in fact, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people with low IQ and low future-time orientation. They would NOT be able to muster the planning needed to acquire guns in a milieu of tight gun control."

Get rid of the violent and stupid NAM class first and then I'll consider rewriting the second amendment.

"Guns don’t make you feel high. When guns are illegal, then you can’t do anything with them besides shoot someone, "

Criminals want guns to commit crimes so they can get money to pay for drugs. Guns are useful to criminals as a means to an end and they will work hard to acquire them.

This only works if ALL guns are banned, which is not going to happen outside of a fantasy universe.

"The problem with this is that the government has tanks and attack helicopters, and against that firepower your guns are useless."

Probably true but the cost to the government of launching a hypothetical attack against over a hundred million gun owners would be sizable enough that the guns would still be functioning as a deterrent under this scenario.

"Thus we need to think about whether the Second Amendment makes any sense in the 21st Century."

If the low-IQ weren't a concern then it would make no difference from a crime perspective whether or not to keep the second amendment. What matters is population composition: Switzerland has a law abiding population that can be trusted with guns so there's no reason to not allow Swiss citizens to own them because their citizens will likely use them responsibly.

guns still help in a revolution. the regime's enforcers have to get out of their tanks once in a while. they can be shot. the goal is to offer enough resistance that some of the troops decide it's not worth it (they're fighting their own people so morale is low anyway). then some of those tanks and jets turn on the regime. in a foreign encounter things play out differently, but i'd like to point out that the Afghani resistance has fought back against the vastly superior US forces even though they (Taliban) don't have tanks and jets.

I typically enjoy your blog, but this post was bullshit itself, if I do say so. Your northeast roots are showing. Guns are tightly regulated in Mexico, but those drug gangsters have them, anyway. Most of these weapons do NOT come from the US, contrary to popular belief. I would be willing to accept some gun control measures, so I'm not one an extremist by any stretch. That's just one example.

Yours is a supremely ignorant comment. Each of those insurgent forces utilized weapons far beyond rifles in their respective conflicts -- heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft guns, mortars, landmines, grenades and high explosives. All highly restricted or impossible for civilians to legally posses. Libyan rebels had the backing of the worlds most powerful naval air forces, too, without which they would have failed.

No lightly-armed force will defeat a heavily-armed foe that is unrestrained by politics, morality, or other geostrategic interests.

"Modern liberal interpretation that the Second Amendment is only about militias is, to put it bluntly, a lot of bullshit. Justice Scalia spent a lot of effort explaining why it’s bullshit in District of Columbia v. Heller."

I don't think you can be that confident. I read both the opinion and dissent and I don't think it's as conclusive as you think. Judge Posner, who is brilliant and not a leftist ideologue, also thinks it's inconclusive.

"Common sense" can be overruled by empirical evidence. It seems "common sense" that with no gun control there will be some murders that would not have otherwise occurred. But it's also "common sense" that criminals are going to be more hesitant about breaking into people's homes in a country where people are armed. Whether guns cause more crimes than they prevent is an empirical question.

In a previous post, you wrote something like "Most people on this blog support the right to bear arms because they identify with Team Red rather than thinking for themselves. They only go to right wing sites, and read the stuff about guns reducing violence. But if they really thought about it, they'd say that HBD should lead one to support gun control."

I read both conservative and liberal sites, and only see numbers and empirical evidence put forth by conservatives. The liberals tend to rely more on your "common sense" position and anecdotes. They also point out that America has a high murder rate by world standards, while obviously ignoring the race issue. Here's Jeffrey Goldberg, a liberal, making the case for more guns

Radical gun control for men with MAOA-3R and MAOA-2R who refuse the MAOA agonists that doctors will invent to fight cancer.

You speak of IQ, but low IQ only increases violent crime in men with MAOA-3R (and probably even more in men with MAOA-2R). This genetic gun control would deprive the majority of African-American men of gun ownership without being directly racist, or it would put them on drugs to prevent violence.

"But in fact, the vast majority of violent crimes are committed by people with low IQ and low future-time orientation. They would NOT be able to muster the planning needed to acquire guns in a milieu of tight gun control."

"Killers with high IQ and who are methodical like James Holmes are a very rare exception."

Of course, since this gun-control push was *kicked off* by one of those very rare exceptions, and is being promoted as a response to those very rare exceptions, maybe the fact that your argument falls apart when applied to those very rare exceptions is relevant, no?

There's some dispute about that. And appeals to "simple common sense", especially when supported by the brilliant remark "Duh!", are not highly correlated with well-thought-out positions.

"And no, guns are not like drugs (for which there does exist a thriving black market)."

No, they're not the same. For instance, guns never wear out, so once smuggled in, a gun is in circulation effectively forever.

"Guns are much harder to smuggle,"

Justify that statement immediately. "Harder to smuggle" in what sense? In the sense that they're made out of metal and plastic, and therefore have no distinguishing chemical signatures?

"and people are not addicted to them the way they are addicted to drugs."

Totally irrelevant. You just want to assume that there will be no demand for guns. Wishful thinking.

"When guns are illegal, then you can’t do anything with them besides shoot someone, and unless done with a high degree of planning to avoid getting caught (which is beyond the ability of most criminals who have low IQ and low future-time orientation), you will most likely end up in jail."

Shooting people is surprisingly useful, especially among the criminal classes. BTW, has your straw-low-future-time-orientation-man got enough future time orientation to realize that shooting someone will likely land him in jail? I guess he's got just enough FTO to support whatever point you feel like making, eh?

"So in all likelihood, there will not be a black market for guns the way there is for drugs."

Please explain where all those fast-and-furious guns were going then, if not to the Mexican black market.

Here's a good example of "common sense" going awry on the gun issue. The author is an affirmative action professional complainer, arguing that we irrationally fear home invasions in this country, when the odds of your home being burglarized are very small.

A young, female commentator from a gun-saturated, inner city black neighborhood describes how easily criminals get their guns. Sisters and girlfriends with clean records buy the guns legally. The gun recipient then files off the serial number, making the gun untraceable:

"Now let’s talk about the argument that we need guns to have a revolution against the government. The problem with this is that the government has tanks and attack helicopters, and against that firepower your guns are useless."

The problem with this is that the government cannot and will not use unlimited firepower against its own population, so the tanks and attack helicopters are irrelevant.

The standard planning factor for military occupations is you need 20 troops per 1,000 population to pacify a country. Thus, the US Army would need to be over 6 million strong in order to pacify the USA. The Army and Marines together have about a tenth of that requirement. Throw in every cop in the USA and you have another 800,000. In other words, way way short of the capability to suppress a revolt, should one occur.

Texas, 26 million people, the US Army would be *just* big enough to occupy it if every single soldier were deployed there...

" I also need to point out that they also didn’t imagine that the right to bear arms would be applied to negros."

Why not? There were free black men in the north in the 18th Century. Didn't some of them own weapons?

" They certainly didn’t imagine nuclear bombs, nor did they imagine military aircraft and tanks... "

Seems like a red herring. They had cannons and bombs back then too, but I doubt the average militia man kept them at home. Similarly, in countries where there is a modern equivalent of a militia today (e.g., Switzerland, Israel), no one keeps tanks in their garages. Common sense suggests that the second amendment should include modern infantry rifles, but not artillery, nuclear bombs, etc.

"The problem with this is that the government has tanks and attack helicopters, and against that firepower your guns are useless."

They weren't useless to the Afghans or Iraqis.

[HS: Foreign governments gave the rebels weapons. And Afghanistan was better off being run by the Russians than being run by the Taliban which took over with U.S. supplied weapons.]

We should ban high-capacity magazines, and automatic and semi-automatic assault rifles. As for the government turning tyrannical... if that happens and I decide to play John McClaine, then maybe I'll buy a guy. All of you nut-jobs are telling me how easy it is to get one. In the meanwhile, I'll enjoy the peace dividend of a lower homicide rate.

Besides, when it comes to resisting governments, bombs are where it's at. IEDs, car bombs, suicide bombs. Yet it's somehow OK for our government to make bombs illegal.

"Foreign governments gave the rebels weapons. And Afghanistan was better off being run by the Russians than being run by the Taliban which took over with U.S. supplied weapons."

You sidestepped the comparison, HS. Afghan rebels did not have attack choppers. They had rifles and RPGs. So, yes, an "underarmed", but devoted rebel force can fight superior firepower to a stalemate, and sometimes win.

There may come a day when the US government becomes genuinely evil. And god have mercy on its citizens should they face that day stripped of any means at all of self-defense.

"You speak of IQ, but low IQ only increases violent crime in men with MAOA-3R (and probably even more in men with MAOA-2R). This genetic gun control would deprive the majority of African-American men of gun ownership without being directly racist, or it would put them on drugs to prevent violence."

I like the idea of drugging the NAMs to make them more docile.

This is also why I support legalizing weed: Marijuana lowers male sex drive and agression/ambition. Since NAMs would be the most likely to use legalized marijuana at the highest frequencies, legalizing weed would reduce aggression and sexual activity among NAMs and thus have the consequence of lowering both NAM crime rates and fertility.

The notion that crimes went straight up after [insert Western country] banned guns is anecdotal hearsay recycled by gun nuts. Even in the U.S.A. not all States have a "stand your ground" option - but everywhere else throughout the West it a "duty to retreat". In other words, even when people could own guns they could hardly legally shoot someone unless their life was in imminent otherwise they'd be the ones to go to jail.

HS: Under what circumstances do you imagine the U.S. Army shelling White suburbs? Nah at 10:46 PM is right. The 85% White infantry, and the 95% White elite troops and aircrew, are not going to attack Whites who are defending themselves from Black and Hispanic mobs. And you can count on serious disorder originating with the Darks.

Here's a real world example of a militia defending themselves from overbearing government. I read about it 30 years ago in "Tomato Growers Monthly".
Some city boy working for some Federal agency or other gave notice to a farmer that he was in violation of some regulation or other. He showed up to Investigate the offending farmer, and found a half dozen other farmers standing around with guns. The city boy left and dropped the issue.
This was at a time when environmental enforcers were hounding farmers over the destruction of wetlands, that is, farmers leveling their fields and in so doing, dumping dirt onto the low spots where water collected. Farmers were getting slapped with big fines, and even confiscation of farm equipment to pay delinquent fines. Men were having their livelihoods taken, and took action to put a stop to it. Since "Tomato Growers Monthly" is not exactly part of the MSM, you didn't hear about this stuff, but it happened.

Nice sarcasm post. To play straight man I will note that the Founding Fathers did consider heavy firepower, private cannons were not at all uncommon. They also considered rapid fire weapons. The Puckle Gun, a flintlock machinegun was invented more than 50 years before the revolution and I didn't see any references to prohibitions on such things.

"From wikipedia: "The overall homicide rates per 100,000 (regardless of weapon type) reported by the United Nations for 1999 were 4.55 for the U.S. and 1.45 in England and Wales." Half Sigma

You know better than to conflate shooting homicides with all homicides. The overall homicide rate in the UK has gone down since they banned guns. But its gone down faster in the US during the same period. Moreover, the UK's shooting homicide rate has increased by 35%. As for, the US overall higher homicide rate... you subscribe to HBD so you should be able figure that one out. (Note: correlation doesn't imply causation)

*
"The gun recipient then files off the serial number, making the gun untraceable:" mark caplan

Filing doesn't really remove a serial number. When the number is stamped into a receiver it deforms the molecules in the metal. A lab can easily recover the number and trace the gun. They do it all the time.
*

The main characteristic that makes an "assault rifle" is select fire which is primarily used for suppression during a firefight. Consequently, assault rifles use lighter, less powerful ammunition than most rifles. That's because select fire wastes a lot of ammo and the less powerful rounds are easier to control in full auto. Everything else is pretty much cosmetic. Obviously, less powerful ammo is less lethal and has reduced range. So there is certainly no advantage to the ammo. And it doesn't really matter if you shoot someone twice or fifty times so there isn't much point to select fire in most mass shootings, either.

Regardless, the AK47 and AR15 versions sold to civilians are NOT assault rifles because they lack select fire. Assault rifles are already highly restricted and almost no one has one. Those who demand assault rifles be banned are either ignorant or dishonest. The most lethal and effective weapon for the range at which nearly all shootings occur isn't even a rifle. Its a shotgun which is still legal and easily available even in many countries for which guns have been "banned". Nor will shotguns EVER be banned because, in spite of the hopelessly middle class liberals screaming that "only proles have guns", shooting has always been popular among the upper class. Proles aren't the ones paying $120K for a matched pair of bespoke shotguns from J Purdey & Sons. Nor are proles paying $85K for Fabbri Over-Unders. But Steven Spielberg and King Juan Carlos of Spain are. Belittling firearms as "prole" is the equivalent of saying gun owners have "cooties". Yes, I have "cooties". ಠ_ಠ

The Constitution from start to finish is about the rule of law. It gives a nonviolent way for the citizens to amend it if they are dissatisfied with some part of it. The idea that the Second Amendment was designed to give license to individuals to murder government officials and overthrow the government when they deem it oppressive is an absurdity.

The Constitution itself deals harshly with rebellion and treason. Habeas corpus may be suspended in times of rebellion (Art. 1, Sect. 9). The Constitution defines the crime of treason as the act of levying war against the United States (Art. 3, Sect. 3).

". The most lethal and effective weapon for the range at which nearly all shootings occur isn't even a rifle. Its a shotgun which is still legal and easily available even in many countries for which guns have been "banned"."

Britain being the prime example.
I can't think of any recent mass shootings in which a shotgun was the primary weapon. James Holmes fired several shots from one, but did most of the damage with a pistol.
Shotgun anecdote: it once was common for police officers, especially in non-urban locations, to have shotguns in their cars. For the most part AR-style rifles have replaced the shotguns. While there are a number of reasons for this change, the main one is that given the declining physical standards for police, it's now more difficult for police officers to manage shotgun recoil.

Whether a gun ban would "reduce gun deaths" in the aggregate should be irrelevant in your analysis. Your only consideration should be: does X law make my life better or worse. That means weighing the consideration that you or someone you care about will be a victim of gun violence versus whether your personal gun ownership will protect you from violence.

Obviously this analysis is different for everybody. I think the main reason this shooting has caused such a reaction is that it is the only kind of gun violence that suburban liberals think will actually affect them. When the same number of ghetto blacks shoot each other over the course of a weekend in Chicago, it doesn't affect our perception of risk because we know we won't be a victim of that type of violence.

For people who don't own guns, the analysis is generally simple. You don't own a gun, therefore your legal ability to own one does not confer any benefit - except, arguably, the deterrent benefit of being a person who might possibly own a gun, and the future possibility that you could buy a gun if circumstances changed such that you would prefer to own one.

For people who do own guns, the "only outlaws will have guns" logic makes more sense. Because I am a law-abiding citizen, I know that a gun ban will successfully disarm me. However there will still be a criminal element out there with guns, even if the gun ban would reduce their numbers. And let's not forget that having a gun will also protect you from criminals with knives, bats, and those who operate in packs.

I do not care if gun control would have prevented the "gun death" of the likes of Trayvon Martin. George Zimmerman shouldn't, either. For him, the calculus was clearly in favor of ownership, the present attempt to railroad him notwithstanding. Martin's family probably disagrees. Vote your own interest, not that of "society."

Also, tanks and cannons should, in fact be allowed for private ownership (and I would certainly argue that they should be regulated and controlled). The cost of ownership of these items is far in excess of any potential gain you could get from any crime using them, and they are difficult enough to use that any spree killer would have a very difficult time doing anything terrible with them.

Private, well regulated, militias should be allowed.

@dearieme All handguns and all semi-auto rifles pretty much counts as "banning the hell out of all kinds of guns" to me. Not to mention they've made it illegal to defend yourself with a legally owned gun.

"Also, tanks and cannons should, in fact be allowed for private ownership (and I would certainly argue that they should be regulated and controlled). The cost of ownership of these items is far in excess of any potential gain you could get from any crime using them, and they are difficult enough to use that any spree killer would have a very difficult time doing anything terrible with them."

Lol, what? A guy like Holmes or Lanza or an Al Qaida terrorist could probably figure out how to use a tank if they were allowed to keep one.

Japan is safe and has few guns because it has no Blacks or Hispanics. America has been multi-racial since the beginning: Indians and Blacks filled with hatred, justifiable or not, against Whites and acting violently on said hatred. Japan, there's nothing but Japanese there. Women can walk around safe at night, and the Yakuza themselves are regulated tightly.

Guns were part of the Constitution not for rebelling against the government but because the government consistently from the 1670's onwards failed to protect the people from Indians and Bandits and the French and Spanish. This has now changed to failure to protect against Black rioters, Black looters and mobs after Hurricanes, the Zeta and other Drug Cartels in the Southwest, and constant grinding low level Street Crime by Blacks and Hispanics.

The monopoly power of the State for protection means said protection WILL be withdrawn whenever politics, corruption, and so on make it the easiest course for those in power. The Founding Fathers distrusted Kingly centralized power and thus gave to ordinary people the right to be free men and own arms, not slaves depending on masters for protection (or serfs if you prefer).

"Fewer guns leads to less gun crime" is one of those commonsensical things that sounds like it ought to be true. It's not a priori true -- since a gun in the hands of a capable law-abiding civilian might well prevent crime. But let's take your "duh" as a given.

There are at least 2 pesky issues:
1. What do you do about the 300M+ guns already floating around?
2. How is a law-abiding citizen to protect him/herself from violence? Even of the non-gun type? How is a woman to protect herself from rape, for example?

I have much to say on this subject but I would like to address the point you made. To quote:

If the justification for private ownership of assault rifles is the need of the people to defend themselves and their liberties from the armed force of a tyrannical state, shouldn’t there also be private ownership of machine guns, tanks, jet planes, and nuclear bombs? After all, can assault rifles in the hands of individuals prevail against an all-out armed government tyranny?

This type of thinking seriously misunderstands the nature of tyranny so the reductio ad adbsurdum is rendered largely ineffective.

The purpose of any tyranny is to subjugate and humiliate a hated enemy. An efficiently-run tyranny is one that subjugates and humiliates an enemy while extracting the maximum amount of resources possible. To do this requires boots-on-the-ground. Heavily armed men are surgical in their ability to subjugate. They can kick down doors, separate family members, kill one person, while yelling at another, rape women and engage in all kinds of mayhem that is largely confined to the intended target. Machine guns, tanks, nuclear weapons, jet planes, drones, etc., are not surgical weapons. They simply destroy..or not. They can kill, and threaten to kill, but they induce collateral damage not confined to an intended target. Collateral resources that can be taken away from an enemy end up being destroyed by these weapons.

Consider this scenario. DHS FEMA soldiers go door to door making sure the residents are defenseless. Behind them is a 2,000-strong flash mob led by Jamie Foxx, Quentin Tarantino, Harvey Weinstein and Harry Belafonte. They go into the first house, kill a father, rape a mother, send the two sons to labor in different FEMA camps, one one the West coast and the other on the East. Behind them is a George Soros knockoff, meticulously cataloging the assets of the family to be collected and distributed to loyal apparatchiks. Maybe the house goes to Rahm Emmanuell's son, along with the daughter. The process is repeated.

Try doing any of this with a tank. Or a drone. Or a nuclear missile. It is not possible. Armed men on the ground are needed to do tyranny correctly. Remove the ability of armed men to function, and you've greatly increased the cost of imposing tyranny on society, no matter what other fancy toys a government has.

The IDF is not trying to subjugate Palestinians in the middle east.

This is why being able to equip civilians with small arms that go toe-to-toe with military weapons is the sweet-spot equalizer. It so raises the cost of tyranny that the attempt is rarely tried.

This is why the AR15 is so popular and why it is a necessary component of the second amendment. Whatever standardized small arms available to the military when equally available to the civilian, negates the military's ability to do harm to the civilian populace. The Democrats, who fully intend on doing bad things to you, want to make this weapon unavailable so that you can't go through the body armor of the FEMA agents they want to invade your homes.

Don't underestimate people with an IQ of 85. A black man of average intelligence who can't interpret directions accompanying prescription medication, understand the concept of compound interest, or perform a Google search for the nearest abortion clinic is nonetheless nowhere close to mentally retarded. He can read at a functional level, interpret a subway map, learn a rudimentary trade, and pass exams to get a driver's licence. The average black man understands the concept of profit and loss enough to buy bulk quantities of drugs and sell at a profit. The average black man has enough future time orientation to save for an engagement ring. What makes you think purchasing an illegal gun would be any harder? If the seconds amendment were repealed tomorrow and 75% of guns were turned in, there would still be tens of millions of firearms in private hands.

"Says the Marxist. I'm dead sure that you didn't check into this, but just assumed that a Communist government would be better than the alternatives."

Uhm, domination by Communist Russia was better than Taliban rule. Taliban controlled Afghanistan became one of the few non-African countries in the world to have a standard of living worse than Africa.

Mark Caplan at 10:18 AM: Read the Federalist #46. Written by the authors of the Constitution, it explicitly argues that the government cannot become a tyranny, because the armed citizenry will shoot the government's agents. Tell James Madison and Alexander Hamilton that they don't know the meaning of the Constitution.
You're right that the Constitution is all about the rule of law. And the 2nd Amendment is about confronting lawless government.

I think the readers of this blog rejoiced when Paris, Oslo, Brussels fell under socialism in 1940, when Prague, Budapest, and Bucharest fell under socialism in 1945, and when Kabul fell under socialism in 1979. Socialism's just better than how ever the natives thought to rule themselves.

But it really doesn't matter what we think if the natives have different ideas.

It's disingenuous to compare two countries so different in size and demographics. As has been mentioned it would make more sense to look at particular states with similar demographics (90% white) and lax gun laws. Perhaps also look at Canada, although their violence tends to be concentrated amongst minorities as is the case in other countries.

Half of all homicides in LA and Chicago are gang related. A good portion more are likely tangentially gang related, and more beyond that drug (dealing) related.

One thing to remember, be careful looking at FBI statistics on violence by race; the FBI categorizes hispanics as white.

HS you should look at free speech policies, particularly in regard to religion and race, in countries with the strictest gun laws; perhaps you would discover a pattern.